Nuclear Power a Red Herring?

So far most of the nuclear power discussion has been about grid electricity.

Even if the UK replaced all its nukes it would only offset a small proportion of current CO2 emissions (something like 5%) because other major energy consuming sectors use other sources of power than the grid eg gas home heating, industrial use of gas, coal and oil, aviation fuel for aircraft, petrol and diesel for cars and lorries.

The proponents of nuclear will actually achieve little or nothing in terms of emissions reductions (if they get their way) if overall energy consumption continues to rise - nukes will just provide the power taken up by the increased consumption.

What we really need is across the board demand reduction through a massive programme of efficiency improvements, new technologies and a switch to low carbon grid generation if we are to cut UK emissions substantially.

Nuclear is a red herring in this debate - and retains the serious drawbacks of risk, waste and its own form of non-renewable fuel – uranium. ‘Peak uranium’ looms in about a hundred years time at present consumption rates.

Nuclear Power, Energy Supply & Climate Change

I usually put my more strident rants on my Bile blog - but I think this one - triggered by the Energy White Paper published yesterday - needs to be here...

Of course, slowing climate change is about reducing carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gas) emissions, not purely about changing energy sources.
We could reduce CO2 emissions by

• reducing road traffic levels and aircraft use,
• building more energy efficient housing
• and by using energy more efficiently in industry.
  

And that's all before even thinking about social changes towards a lower energy lifestyle (see Transition Towns). Even when you consider electricity generation, the technology exists for lower powered computers, fluorescent lighting etc, not to mention uses (like heating) where electricity is simply inefficient.

So – when a Government is prepared to spend just £18M a year in energy conservation grants but several billion pounds on replacing nuclear weapons (which are contingency against a less certain threat than climate change) and several hundred billion pounds maintaining a military operation (partly) to safeguard oil supplies – you have to wonder at its priorities.

What I'm getting at is the suggestion that we need nuclear power to counter the threat of climate change is cr*p - I won't get into the arguments about nuclear waste, the threat of accident, the threat of terrorism, the impossibility of insuring nuclear power stations or even the fact that uranium extraction from its ore generates significant levels of CO2 - let's just say there are other alternatives in the timescale we've got.

As to security of supply – sources of high-grade uranium ore (eg West Africa, Siberia) are not exactly politically stable, any more than sources of oil and gas. And current nuclear power stations are designed to produce weapons-grade nuclear fuel by reprocessing. That’s one of the reasons why the Americans doubt the Iranian civil nuclear programme so much. Development of entirely ‘civil’ nuclear power stations will take much longer than the 20 year window we’re told we have.

Of course if photovoltaics, wave or tidal power could have been used to create weapons of mass destruction, they’d have been fully developed by now.

And I guess it is coincidence that the Government have published planning reform for major infrastructure projects and a strategy identifying the need for new nuclear power stations across the country.